Opinions in Mobile (http://opinions.hungrymobile.com) is an online platform, where top executives and leaders from the mobile services and mobile entertainment industry respond to questions related to the mobile market. These questions are asked and sent to them once every week, and they respond throughout the week.

With Facebook Mobile reaching up to 100 million users, where do you think mobile social networking is going?6th WEEK

SN will be for many people the primary channel, not an add-on, and we won\'t delineate mobile from fixed as the experience becomes more seamless. SN is a stream that is part of so many activities, built into our basic transactions. Google search already has SN and maps with Latitude.

We are increasingly connected via mobile devices, so we are already socially networking. The \'reach\' of Facebook is nothing in comparison to that of those with mobile phones. Social network platforms which come and go periodically, will continue to move into predominant channels of communication. Whether they can monetise that is another question.

Social networking - whether on mobile or not - and social mobile interaction are not necessarily the same thing. On the former, it is natural that there will be an expansion of usage to existing networks from mobile devices (as there is an expansion of usage of mobile devices all over the place) but, on the latter, I think we will be seeing many different and original solutions to come. Early examples of what people are doing with augmented reality browsers (which only really makes sense on a mobile device) shows a small glimpse, little apps like FourSquare do, too. Mobile has a number of unique distinguishing factors (location-awareness being one of them) and it will be much, much more than a mere extension of \"ordinary\" online services.

I\'ll be speaking about this at a number of conferences this spring. Watch my Slideshare (http://slidershare.net/hirsch30) for copies of the presentations.

What do you think the future of mobile news is? Ad-funded mobile portals /apps or paid for news?5th WEEK

The future of mobile news is to be very similar to other internet news,
but with the benefit of the browser being more personal so people will ted
to personalize their news feed / page a little more that they do on a PC.

Also, there will be an enhancement to the mobile browser to allow
web pages / ajax to make noises - a bit like \"txt msg alerts\" now.

For what media companies are looking at, no better than take a view on what Rupert Murdoch is doing.

Stung by the collapse in advertising revenue, Murdoch has declared that the era of a free-for-all in online news is over.

\"Quality journalism is not cheap,\" said Murdoch. \"The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites.\"

The charging model will be extended to “red-top” tabloids such as the Sun and the News of the World. Murdoch said he was keen to capitalise on the popularity of celebrity stories: \"When we have a celebrity scoop, the number of hits we get now are astronomical.\" He accepted that there could be a need for furious litigation to prevent stories and photographs being copied elsewhere: \"We\'ll be asserting our copyright at every point.\"

Among quality newspapers, Murdoch singled out the Daily Telegraph\'s run of stories about fraudulent MPs\' expenses (a huge editorial campaign here in the UK over many weeks), as an example of news for which consumers would be willing to pay, describing it as a \"great scoop\".

Murdoch said change was inevitable: \"We\'re certainly satisfied that we can produce significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content.\"

Murdoch\'s British newspapers suffered a 14% drop in year-end advertising revenue as the recession took its toll. Profits across News Corp\'s global newspaper division fell from $786m to $466m, so it needs to do something! And you can guess that once online is sorted, mobile will be next on the paid list. Mobile apps are v much en vogue presently but I expect people like Murdoch to experiment with differing models to see which monetises best!

Both will succeed. The web is making us more connected -- and more tribal. As we become more tribal there is more value in niche news, opinion, and data. Our connected selves demand opinion and commentary to make sense of our rapidly changing world -- and the broader that is the better. Advertisers will support this -- they have always paid for adjacent eyeballs.

I think the future of content being paid for is down to people paying for what they perceive to be of value. I don\'t believe people will willingly tolerate screen space being taken up with things that aren\'t news - regardless of whether that makes things \'free\' or not. If people have to give their attention, its still a form of payment. One thing is for sure, portals (in the current definition) are history - its not about destination, its about distribution.

What do you think about the recent backing of EA from developing apps for Android?50th WEEK

The Android OS is not yet ready for serious gaming. This will change once user numbers get up, assuming Android OEM fragmentation is not an issue.
Games won\'t make Android successful. If Android becomes successful, games will be successful.

It is obvious. Android is (or appears to be) a big platform on the rise, which has a lot of the ingredients to succeed (strong sponsor in Google, potent OEMs and carriers signed up and deploying, etc). EA certainly cannot afford to ignore it, be it - from today\'s standpoint - only for their carrier and OEM partners who offer it (nor can, for that matter, Gameloft as the scramble following their ominous PR showed). And, after all, should it fail as a content platform, will they be able to reverse their decision? Of course they will...

Funny question: it\'s a bit like \"what do you think about the recent backing of Activision for the PS3\" - of course EA mobile backs an emerging major mobile OS. You only ask the question because Gameloft alledgedly cut back on Android. Well, EA and Gameloft are publicly quoted companies, forced to show positive results... so they naturally concentrate their investment on areas that promise the best RoI. And guess what: that\'s currently not Android. For anything else: consider the Gameloft statement a PR-accident.

What do you think about the Google/Admob acquisition? What comes next?47th WEEK

Snapping up Admob sends a clear signal to the market: mobile is different and mobile advertising is hot. Will other investors follow like lemmings, kicking off a run on mobile companies and start-ups? The jury is out on that one. But what we should be asking ourselves is how this new realization that mobile is indeed different will likely impact the wider mobile Web. The advance of touchscreen devices, app stores and new advertising approaches/formats are all coming together in a new kind of interactive mobile Internet, a brave new place where new content, new experiences and even new mobile search services will set the bar.

\'It\'s fabulous news for mobile and I think the whole industry is delighted for all-round good egg Russell Buckley. It should be noted that the deal is in paper, not cash, so that\'s a significant caveat. Russell and I are on a panel at www.futureconf.ie on November 26th in Dublin. Only 169 Euros. Come and find out for yourself what comes next.\'

Four views:
1. It shows Google\'s commitment to \"mobile, mobile, mobile\", which in itself is encouraging for the sector that is - despite a number of larger players evolving and despite the still relatively recent paradigm shift initiated by the iPhone - still fledgling. That in isolation makes it great news for the mobile sector.
2. Great for Admob (congratulations to Russell Buckley in particular!).
3. Short-term a smart move by both players: Admob will be able to bulk up and cement its leadership position in the segment. Its inventory and back-end ad management will be able to dip into Google\'s vast resources, which is great for them. Google probably realized that Admob\'s strength meant that they would be difficult to beat. And who you can\'t beat, you shall join (or, in Google\'s case, buy) them. For Google, it is a smart move as it gives them critical mass in an ad format where they have not nearly been as dominant as for other formats and gives them access to a lot of eyeballs.
4. Long-term probably a little more complex: if the future of advertising is in engagement (which I believe it is), then adding eyeballs is only a very, very small step to this. Google is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success: 97% of its revenues from one source. Milk it as long as you can, yes. Long-term viable strategy? I am not so sure.

But, hey, both Google and Admob are smart companies. And to be able to build on the base they have may also be a luxury problem. All good! ;-)

I wish the Admob guys and girls all the best (especially Russell Buckley). However, as you probably know, I personally don\'t care for the irrelevant and un-targeted version of mobile advertising so I find it hard to be enthusiastic about it\'s long-term future. If impressions and eyeballs are your game (and Lord knows thats what its all about currently), then its all good baby. Yeah.

Google is in the front row. Their offer to the operators is the holy grail of mobile telcom -- access to advertising revenue. Their proposition is free for your customers, makes money for you. However, Microsoft is not to be underestimated with its advertising ecosystem, tie-up with Yahoo, etc. This is pressure on Apple, who does not have this, RIM, Nokia and others.

What is the impact of google's entry in the navigation business?46th WEEK

Google has transformed the model. Their offer is better than free. it will be free to the consumer, and Operators will make money from advertising. NavTeq research showed that contextual advertising is regarded as a service, not \"marketing\". Nokia/OVI will have to respond.

It’s the beginning of the end for mass market handheld specialist navigation products. Just as mobile has consumed (or is in the process of consuming) still and video cameras, alarm clocks, watches, calculators, pagers, MP3 players and web access, in the future navigation will just be a part of what your mobile phone does. Convergionism is unstoppable.

Does anyone remember what happened when Nokia entered the camera phone business? It nearly killed lower-end cameras. The sales curves were literally mirrored: camera sales decreased to the same degree camera phones rose. I suspect the same may well be happening with Google and stand-alone \"sat nav\". I have been using my iPhone\'s (fairly crude) Google Maps/sat nav functions at times (i.e. not any of the expensive clients) and it is, whilst not perfect at all, enough to keep me from buying anything. With Google now adding \"proper\" sat nav, including voice directions, etc, this would appear to being a no-brainer.

The overall take-up will take its time though: when Nokia went for the cameras, it was the world\'s market leader (and growing), so that it did not take any change of user behaviour to aide erosion of the camera market. This is different with Google\'s initiative: if a user will buy such a phone will depend to a large extent on the actual handset, too. But with cooler devices like Moto\'s Droid starting to hit the market, this may only be a short-term issue.

As with many other Google services, I predict there will be an equal share of \'naysayers\' and positive advocates. Either way round, the challenge is whether or not this will open the market for others to flourish or whether it grabs a market for itself. If it\'s the former then the impact is all good.